Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 155–170 | Cite as

The effect of probing on deceivers and truthtellers

  • David B. Buller
  • Jamie Comstock
  • R. Kelly Aune
  • Krystyna D. Strzyzewski


This study examined the effect of probing for additional information on the accuracy of deception detection. One hundred forty-eight experimental interactions were analyzed to see whether deceivers and truthtellers behave differently when probed and whether probing improved deception detection. Probing produced a number of changes in nonverbal behavior, several of which differed between deceivers and truthtellers. Probing may have communicated suspicion or uncertainty; therefore, deceptive sources were motivated to control their nonverbal demeanor to mask deception-related cues and appear truthful. Probing did not improve detection. Instead, probing receivers considered all sources more truthful. It is suggested that suspiciousness and prior knowledge may affect probing's efficacy.


Social Psychology Prior Knowledge Nonverbal Behavior Experimental Interaction Deception Detection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bauchner, J. E. (1978).Accuracy in detecting deception as a function of level of relationship and communication history. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  2. Brandt, D. R., Miller, G. R. & Hocking, J. E. (1980a). Effects of self-monitoring and familiarity on deception detection.Communication Quarterly, 28 3–10.Google Scholar
  3. Brandt, D. R., Miller, G. R. & Hocking, J. E. (1980b). The truth-deception attribution: Effects of familiarity on the ability of observers to detect deception.Human Communication Research, 6 99–110.Google Scholar
  4. Brandt, D. R., Miller, G. R. & Hocking, J. E. (1982). Familiarity and lie detection: A replication and extension.Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46 276–290.Google Scholar
  5. Buller, D. B., & Aune, R. K. (1987). Nonverbal cues to deception among intimates, friends, and strangers.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11 269–290.Google Scholar
  6. Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication.Communication Monographs, 54 19–41.Google Scholar
  7. Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964).The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. I., & Lassiter, G. D. (1985a). Deceiving and detecting deceit. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.),The self and social life (pp. 323–370). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. I., & Lassiter, G. D. (1985b). Telling ingratiating lies: Effects of target sex and target attractiveness on verbal and nonverbal deceptive success.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 1191–1203.Google Scholar
  10. DePaulo, B. M., Zuckerman, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1980a). Detecting deception: Modality effects. In L. Wheeler (Ed.),Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 125–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. DePaulo, B. M., Zuckerman, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1980b). The deceptions of everyday life.Journal of Communication, 30 216–218.Google Scholar
  12. deTurck, M. A., & Miller, G. R. (1985). Deception and arousal: Isolating the behavioral correlates of deception.Human Communication Research, 12 181–202.Google Scholar
  13. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception.Psychiatry, 32 88–105.Google Scholar
  14. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Detecting deception from the body or face.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29 288–298.Google Scholar
  15. Friesen, W. V., Ekman, P., & Wallbott, H. (1979). Measuring hand movements.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 4 97–112.Google Scholar
  16. Hocking, I. E., & Leathers, D. G. (1980). Nonverbal indicators of deception: A new theoretical perspective.Communication Monographs, 47 119–131.Google Scholar
  17. Hocking, I. E., Miller, G. R., & Fontes, N. E. (1978). Videotape in the courtroom.Trial, 52–55.Google Scholar
  18. Knapp, M. L. & Comadena, M. E. (1979). Telling it like it isn't: A review of theory and research on deceptive communications.Human Communication Research, 5 15–29.Google Scholar
  19. Kraut, R. (1980). Humans as lie detectors: Some second thoughts.Journal of Communication, 30 209–216.Google Scholar
  20. Kraut, R. & Poe, D. (1980). On the line: The deception judgments of customs inspectors and laymen.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 784–798.Google Scholar
  21. McCornack, S. A. & Parks, M. R. (1985). Deception detection and relationship development: The other side of trust. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.),Communication yearbook 9, (pp. 337–389). Beverly Hills CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Miller, G. R., Bauchner, J. E., Hocking, J. E. & Brandt, D. R. (1981). “.... and nothing but the truth”: How well can observers detect deceptive testimony? In B. D. Sales (Ed.),Perspectives in law and psychology. Volume 3, The jury, judicial and trial process.Google Scholar
  23. Simonton, D. K. (1977). Cross-sectional time-series experiments: Some suggested statistical analyses.Psychological Bulletin, 84 489–503.Google Scholar
  24. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30 526–537.Google Scholar
  25. Stiff, J. B. & Miller, G. R. (1986). “Come to think of it...”: Interrogative probes, deceptive communication, and deception detection.Human Communication Research, 12 339–358.Google Scholar
  26. Toris, D., & DePaulo, B. M. (1985). Effects of actual deception and suspiciousness of deception on interpersonal perceptions.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 1063–1073.Google Scholar
  27. Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–59), New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Zuckerman, M., & Driver, R. E. (1985). Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.),Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 129–148). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., & Driver, R. E. (1981). Beliefs about cues associated with deception.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6 105–114.Google Scholar
  30. Zuckerman, M., Spiegel, N. H., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1982). Nonverbal strategies for decoding deception.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6 171–187.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • David B. Buller
    • 1
  • Jamie Comstock
    • 1
  • R. Kelly Aune
    • 2
  • Krystyna D. Strzyzewski
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of CommunicationUniversity of ArizonaTucson
  2. 2.the University of HawaiiManoa

Personalised recommendations